RPF KPIs
KPI 1 - Regulators do not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of regulated entities
KPI 2 -
Communication with regulated entities is clear, targeted and effective
RPF Measures of Good Regulatory Performance
1.
Regulators demonstrate an understanding of the operating environment of the industry or organisation, or the circumstances of individuals and the current and emerging issues that affect the sector.
2.
Regulators take actions to minimise the potential for unintended negative impacts of regulatory activities on regulated entities or affected supplier industries and supply chains.
3.
Regulators implement continuous improvement strategies to reduce the costs of compliance for those they regulate.
1.
Regulators provide guidance and information that is up to date, clear, accessible and concise through media appropriate to the target audience.
2.
Regulators consider the impact on regulated entities and engage with industry groups and representatives of the affected stakeholders before changing policies, practices or service standards.
3.
Regulators’ decisions and advice are provided in a timely manner, clearly articulating expectations and the underlying reasons for decisions.
4.
Regulators’ advice is consistent and supports predictable outcomes.
RBA non-survey metrics
1.
Is a regular review of compliance/regulatory approach conducted?
2.
Alignment with international best practice (e.g. results of PFMI responsibilities assessment for
Australia)
3.
Evidence of stakeholder consultation in development of any new standards / changes to standards
4.
Demonstrated engagement with relevant international regulators
(and, where relevant, other industry participants) to learn from peer experiences and share better practices
1.
Publication of standards and guidance material (yes/no)
2.
Evidence of stakeholder consultation in development of any new standards / changes to standards
RBA survey questions
1.
Are the RBA’s regular scheduled engagements with the
CS facility (e.g. scheduled operational and executive level meetings) an effective method of exchanging pertinent information with the RBA, including regarding compliance issues, without imposing unnecessary burden? How could their effectiveness be improved? Please consider the frequency and length of meetings, the appropriateness of the attendees, the agenda, the level of preparation.
2.
Are the RBA’s engagements with the CS facility on emerging issues effective in ensuring there is an open and timely exchange of views and information? How could their effectiveness be improved? Please consider the timeliness of such engagements and the appropriateness of the attendees.
3.
Does the RBA demonstrate an understanding of the CS facility’s operating environment? If not, please give examples.
1.
Has the RBA adequately consulted with the CS facility regarding all relevant proposed changes to its regulation of CS facilities? How could the RBA’s consultation with CS facilities (e.g. consultation papers, consultation meetings) on policy development be improved? Please consider the clarity and timeliness of such engagements.
2.
Are the RBA’s expectations, decisions and advice
(including with respect to requests/queries regarding the operation of the regulatory framework) communicated in a clear and timely manner? How could the RBA’s communication with the CS facility be improved?
3.
Are the RBA’s published materials regarding its supervision of CS facilities (e.g. Financial Stability
Standards, Assessments, consultations) up to date, clear, accessible and concise? If not, what improvements could be made?

RPF KPIs
KPI 3 - Actions undertaken by regulators are proportionate to the regulatory risk being managed
KPI 4 - Compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated
RPF Measures of Good Regulatory Performance
1.
Regulators apply a risk-based, proportionate approach to compliance obligations, engagement and regulatory enforcement actions.
2.
Regulators’ preferred approach to regulatory risk is regularly reassessed. Strategies, activities and enforcement actions are amended to reflect changing priorities that result from new and evolving regulatory threats, without diminishing regulatory certainty or impact.
3.
Regulators recognise the compliance record of regulated entities, including using earned autonomy where this is appropriate. All available and relevant data on compliance, including evidence of relevant external verification is considered.
1.
Regulators’ information requests are tailored and only made when necessary to secure regulatory objectives, and only then in a way that minimises impact.
2.
Regulators’ frequency of information collection is minimised and coordinated with similar processes including those of other regulators so that, as far as possible, information is only requested once.
3.
Regulators utilise existing information to limit the reliance on requests from regulated entities and share the information among other regulators, where possible.
4.
Regulators base monitoring and inspection approaches on risk and, where possible, take into account the circumstance and operational needs of the regulated entity.
RBA non-survey metrics
1.
Application of graduated framework (& publication of that framework as set out in CFR appropriate influence policy and the FSS)
2.
Publicly available graduated approach to assessing CS facilities & frequency of assessments
3.
Demonstrated engagement with regulated entities to inform them of expectations by production of regulatory priorities & ability for regulated firms to provide feedback. (qualitative)
1.
Coordination with overseas regulators [re – data, assessments, reliance, prioritization of work]
(qualitative)
2.
Coordination with ASIC
(qualitative)
RBA survey questions
1.
3.
Does the RBA appropriately coordinate regulatory requests and other regulatory engagement with other
Australian regulators (including ASIC) where appropriate?
How could such coordination be improved?
2.
Does the RBA appropriately coordinate regulatory requests and other regulatory engagement with the CS facility’s home/primary regulator where appropriate
(where relevant)? How could such coordination be improved?
Is the scope of the regular data and reports required by the RBA appropriate? How could these reporting arrangements be improved? Please consider the extent to which required data and reports align with those generated for other purposes (e.g. internal risk management or disclosure to participants). Are the frequency and timing of regular reporting requirements and/or ad-hoc data requests appropriate?

RPF KPIs
KPI 5 - Regulators are open and transparent in their dealings with regulated entities
KPI 6 - Regulators actively contribute to the continuous improvement of regulatory frameworks.
RPF Measures of Good Regulatory Performance
1.
Regulators’ risk-based frameworks are publicly available in a format which is clear, understandable and accessible.
2.
Regulators are open and responsive to requests from regulated entities regarding the operation of the regulatory framework, and approaches implemented by regulators.
3.
Regulators’ performance measurement results are published in a timely manner to ensure accountability to the public.
1.
Regulators establish cooperative and collaborative relationships with stakeholders to promote trust and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory framework.
2.
Regulators engage stakeholders in the development of options to reduce compliance costs. This could include industry self-regulation, changes to the overarching regulatory framework, or other strategies to streamline monitoring and compliance approaches.
3.
Regulators regularly share feedback from stakeholders and performance information
(including from inspections) with policy departments to improve the operation of the regulatory framework and administrative processes.
RBA non-survey metrics
1.
Information published regarding approach to supervision (yes/no)
2.
Publication of assessment and summary of work in annual report (yes/no)
3.
Publication of summary of feedback in PSB Annual Report
4.
Publication of policies and reports complies with accessibility guidelines
1.
Alignment of regulatory framework with international principles (yes/no)
2.
RBA engagement in development of international policy
(qualitative)
3.
Documented procedures are in place to allow active and regular engagement with CS facilities, as per published approach to assessing CS facilities (yes/no supported by quantitative details re number of regular quarterly/semi-annual meetings held with CS facilities)
4.
Reporting of stakeholder feedback to the PSB
RBA survey questions
1.
Is the RBA open and transparent in its dealings with the
CS facility? If not, please give examples.
2.
Is the RBA advice to the CS facility regarding the application of regulation or policy (e.g. including but not limited to the application of the Financial Stability
Standards and the CFR’s ‘Appropriate Influence Policy’) consistent and predictable? If not, please give examples.
1.
Do you believe your relationship with the RBA is appropriately cooperative and collaborative? If not, how could this be improved?